DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 01/27/2026. Claims 2-6, 14-17, and 26 had been previously cancelled. Claims 1, 13, and 25 have been amended. Claims 1, 7-13, 18-25, and 27-30 (after renumbering the improperly numbered claims) remain pending. Claims 1, 13, and 25 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 26-29 have been renumbered 27-30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-13, 18-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0094172, hereinafter “Han”) in view of CN110471639A (a reference included in the IDS filed on 09/17/2024, which was also filed along with an indicated English-language equivalent which will be used for mapping purposes, US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0147228, hereinafter “Yi”).
As to independent claim 1, Han shows a method implemented by a communication system [¶¶ 02 & 06], wherein the method comprises:
establishing, by a first electronic device of the communication system, a multi-screen collaboration connection to a second electronic device of the communication system [e.g. establishing, by a first electronic device of the communication system, a multi-screen collaboration connection to a second electronic device of the communication system (¶¶ 06 & 122)];
displaying, by the first electronic device, a first interface of a first application installed on the first electronic device, wherein the first interface comprises a first option [e.g. displaying, by the first electronic device, a first interface of a first application installed on the first electronic device, wherein the first interface comprises a first/“Sharing” option (fig. 1A)];
receiving, by the first electronic device, a first operation performed by a user on the first option [e.g. receiving, by the first electronic device, a first operation performed by a user on the first/“Sharing” option (fig. 1A; ¶ 67)];
displaying, by the first electronic device in response to the first operation, a first menu comprising a first icon of a second application installed on the second electronic device [e.g. displaying, by the first electronic device in response to the first operation, a first menu comprising a first icon of a second application installed on the second electronic device (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
receiving, by the first electronic device, a second operation performed by the user on the first icon [e.g. selecting one of the application icons (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
sending, by the first electronic device, to the second electronic device, and in response to the second operation, an application sharing request; enabling, by the second electronic device in response to the application sharing request, the second application [e.g. enabling access to the selected application after it was selected as the sharing destination (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
displaying, by the first electronic device, a second interface {…} [Han shows many ways of displaying, by the first electronic device, a second interface that is related to the second electronic device/application (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 09 & 11-12)]
As indicated above, Han shows many “second interface” alternatives. In lieu of simply pointing to the considerable breadth of the terms “a window of the second electronic device” and/or “a third interface of the second application” as currently recited and/or the spectrum of possible mappings their respective broadest reasonable interpretations would cover, it is potentially conceded that Han does not appear to explicitly recite a “a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device, wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Yi shows:
displaying, by the first electronic device, a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device [e.g. displaying, by a first large-screen device, a virtual screen 701 (Yi: figs. 7-8B, 10A, 11A-12B, &14A-14E; ¶¶ 192-195 & 237) and/or window frames associated with a multi-window button 7016 (Yi: figs. 11A-13) of a different electronic device (Yi: fig. 1)],
wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device [e.g. the window comprises a third interface of the second application (Yi: figs. 11A-13; ¶¶ 276 & 284)]; and
after displaying the second interface comprising the window: receiving, by the first electronic device, a third operation performed by the user on a second option displayed in the second interface; and minimizing, by the first electronic device in response to the third operation, the window of the second electronic device [“The minimization control 7021 may be configured to minimize the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device. The large-screen device minimizes the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device in response to a click or touch operation on the minimization control 7021. A minimized virtual screen 701 may be, for example, shown in FIG. 10A, and only an indicator 7012 indicating that a virtual screen of an electronic device is projected onto a large-screen device, a search button 7013, a quick launch bar 7014, a desktop activity button 7015, and a multi-window button 7016 are retained. Alternatively, the minimized virtual screen 701 may be, for example, as shown in FIG. 10B, and only a desktop activity button 7015 is retained.” (Yi: ¶ 262)
“In FIG. 11A, FIG. 11B, and FIG. 11C, a name bar of each application on the interface may include a hidden button 1102 and a minimization button 1101. The hidden button 1102 may be configured to hide the interface of the application, and the minimization button 1101 may be configured to minimize the interface of the application and display the interface at a preset location, for example, a lower right corner. {…}” (¶ 282) | See also Yi: ¶¶ 259, 284, & 287.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Yi before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Yi’s window displaying techniques into Han. The rationale for doing so would have been that Han had already explicitly indicated a desire of obtaining an end result wherein “the user may view, by using the first electronic device, an application that is in another electronic device and related to the target data without opening the another electronic device” (Han: ¶ 09) “and the first application in the second electronic device can be invoked to send the target data to the first account. In this way, a quantity of times of operations performed by the user can be reduced, and efficiency of processing the foregoing target data can be improved.” (Han: ¶ 12). Moreover, Yi confirms that incorporating its techniques into Han “helps a user operate applications on the electronic device and the large-screen device at the same time, and improves user experience” (Yi: ¶ 243). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Han and Yi (hereinafter, the “Han-Yi” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 1.
As to dependent claim 7, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein the first menu further comprises a second icon of a third application and a first identifier, wherein the third application is installed on the first electronic device, and wherein the first identifier indicates that the second application is installed on the second electronic device [e.g. the first menu further comprises a second icon of a third application and a first identifier, wherein the third application is installed on the first electronic device, and wherein the first identifier indicates that the second application is installed on the second electronic device (Han: figs. 5B & 9A; ¶¶ 120-121 & 146-147)].
As to dependent claim 8, Han-Yi further shows:
determining the second application in the first menu based on a task type corresponding to the first option [e.g. the second application in the first menu is determined based on a task type corresponding to the first option (Han: ¶¶ 10 & 116)].
As to dependent claim 9, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein before receiving the first operation, the method further comprises receiving, by the first electronic device from the second electronic device, first application information comprising package information of the second application [e.g. before receiving the first operation, first application information comprising package information of the second application is received by the first electronic device from the second electronic device (Han: ¶¶ 105-106, 165, & 180)].
As to dependent claim 10, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after receiving the first application information, the method further comprises performing, by the first electronic device based on the first application information, a simulation to obtain the second application [e.g. after receiving the first application information, a “simulation” to obtain the second application is performed by the first electronic device based on the first application information (Han: figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09, 105-110, 116-121, & 180). It is noted that the metes and bounds of the “a simulation” limitation as currently recited are significantly vague/broad, and cover a wide range of possibilities, including obtaining virtual access to the external application via the first application as taught by Han.].
As to dependent claim 11, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after receiving the first application information, the method further comprises: performing, by the first electronic device based on the task type, a query in the first application information to obtain second application information that matches the task type; and performing, by the first electronic device, a simulation based on the second application information to obtain the second application [e.g. after receiving the first application information, a query performed in the first application information based on the task type by the first electronic device to obtain second application information that matches the task type (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 10 & 116); and “a simulation” is also performed by the first electronic device based on the second application information to obtain the second application (Han: figs. 5B, 7B, 9A-9B, & 11; ¶¶ 09-10, 105-110, 116-121, & 180). It is noted that the metes and bounds of the “a simulation” limitation as currently recited are significantly vague/broad, and cover a wide range of possibilities, including obtaining virtual access to the external application via the first application as taught by Han.].
As to dependent claim 12, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after displaying the first menu, the method further comprises sending, by the first electronic device, to the second electronic device, based on the task type, a query request to obtain application information of the second application [e.g. after displaying the first menu, a query request is sent by the first electronic device to the second electronic device based on the task type to obtain application information of the second application (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 10, 116, & 186)].
As to independent claims 13 and 25, Han shows a method and a concomitant first electronic device [¶¶ 02 & 06], comprising:
establishing a multi-screen collaboration connection with a second electronic device [e.g. establishing a multi-screen collaboration connection to a second electronic device of the communication system (¶¶ 06 & 122)];
displaying a first interface of a first application installed on the first electronic device, wherein the first interface comprises a first option [e.g. displaying a first interface of a first application installed on the first electronic device, wherein the first interface comprises a first/“Sharing” option (fig. 1A)];
receiving a first operation performed by a user on the first option [e.g. receiving a first operation performed by a user on the first/“Sharing” option (fig. 1A; ¶ 67)];
displaying, in response to the first operation, a first menu comprising a first icon of a second application installed on the second electronic device [e.g. displaying a first menu comprising a first icon of a second application installed on the second electronic device (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
receiving a second operation performed by the user on the first icon [e.g. selecting one of the application icons (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
determining, in response to the second operation, the second application; sending, to the second electronic device, an application sharing request instructing the second electronic device to enable the second application [e.g. determining and requesting access to the selected application after it was selected as the sharing destination (figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09 & 116-121)];
displaying a second interface {…} [Han shows many ways of displaying a second interface that is related to the second electronic device/application (Han: figs. 5D, 7B & 11; ¶¶ 09 & 11-12)]
As indicated above, Han shows many “second interface” alternatives. In lieu of simply pointing to the considerable breadth of the terms “a window of the second electronic device” and/or “a third interface of the second application” as currently recited and/or the spectrum of possible mappings their respective broadest reasonable interpretations would cover, it is potentially conceded that Han does not appear to explicitly recite a “a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device, wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Yi shows:
displaying a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device [e.g. displaying, by a first large-screen device, a virtual screen 701 (figs. 7-8B, 10A, 11A-12B, &14A-14E; ¶¶ 192-195 & 237) and/or window frames associated with a multi-window button 7016 (figs. 11A-13) of a different electronic device (fig. 1)],
wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device [e.g. the window comprises a third interface of the second application (figs. 11A-13; ¶¶ 276 & 284)]; and
after displaying the second interface comprising the window: receiving a third operation performed by the user on a second option displayed in the second interface; and minimizing, in response to the third operation, the window of the second electronic device [“The minimization control 7021 may be configured to minimize the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device. The large-screen device minimizes the virtual screen 701 of the electronic device in response to a click or touch operation on the minimization control 7021. A minimized virtual screen 701 may be, for example, shown in FIG. 10A, and only an indicator 7012 indicating that a virtual screen of an electronic device is projected onto a large-screen device, a search button 7013, a quick launch bar 7014, a desktop activity button 7015, and a multi-window button 7016 are retained. Alternatively, the minimized virtual screen 701 may be, for example, as shown in FIG. 10B, and only a desktop activity button 7015 is retained.” (Yi: ¶ 262)
“In FIG. 11A, FIG. 11B, and FIG. 11C, a name bar of each application on the interface may include a hidden button 1102 and a minimization button 1101. The hidden button 1102 may be configured to hide the interface of the application, and the minimization button 1101 may be configured to minimize the interface of the application and display the interface at a preset location, for example, a lower right corner. {…}” (¶ 282) | See also Yi: ¶¶ 259, 284, & 287.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Han and Yi before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Yi’s window displaying techniques into Han. The rationale for doing so would have been that Han had already explicitly indicated a desire of obtaining an end result wherein “the user may view, by using the first electronic device, an application that is in another electronic device and related to the target data without opening the another electronic device” (Han: ¶ 09) “and the first application in the second electronic device can be invoked to send the target data to the first account. In this way, a quantity of times of operations performed by the user can be reduced, and efficiency of processing the foregoing target data can be improved.” (Han: ¶ 12). Moreover, Yi confirms that incorporating its techniques into Han “helps a user operate applications on the electronic device and the large-screen device at the same time, and improves user experience” (Yi: ¶ 243). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Han and Yi (hereinafter, the “Han-Yi” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 13 and 25.
As to dependent claims 18 and 27, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein a third application is installed on the first electronic device, and wherein the first menu further comprises a second icon of the third application [e.g. a third application is installed on the first electronic device and the first menu further comprises a second icon of the third application (Han: figs. 5B & 9A; ¶¶ 120-121 & 146-147)].
As to dependent claims 19 and 28, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein the first menu further comprises a first identifier, and wherein the first identifier indicates that the second application is installed on the second electronic device [e.g. the first menu further comprises a first identifier, and the first identifier indicates that the second application is installed on the second electronic device (Han: figs. 5B & 9A; ¶¶ 120-121 & 146-147)].
As to dependent claims 20 and 29, Han-Yi further shows:
determining the second application in the first menu based on a task type corresponding to the first option [e.g. the second application in the first menu is determined based on a task type corresponding to the first option (Han: ¶¶ 10 & 116)].
As to dependent claims 21 and 30, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein before receiving the first operation, the method further comprises receiving, from the second electronic device, first application information comprising package information of the second application [e.g. before receiving the first operation, first application information comprising package information of the second application is received by the first electronic device from the second electronic device (Han: ¶¶ 105-106, 165, & 180)].
As to dependent claim 22, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after receiving the first application information, the method further comprises performing, based on the first application information, a simulation to obtain the second application [e.g. after receiving the first application information, a “simulation” to obtain the second application is performed based on the first application information (Han: figs. 5B & 9A-9B; ¶¶ 09, 105-110, 116-121, & 180). It is noted that the metes and bounds of the “a simulation” limitation as currently recited are significantly vague/broad, and cover a wide range of possibilities, including obtaining virtual access to the external application via the first application as taught by Han.].
As to dependent claim 23, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after receiving the first application information, the method further comprises: performing, based on the task type, a query in the first application information to obtain second application information that matches the task type; and performing, based on the second application information, a simulation to obtain the second application [e.g. after receiving the first application information, a query performed in the first application information based on the task type by the first electronic device to obtain second application information that matches the task type (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 10 & 116); and “a simulation” is also performed by the first electronic device based on the second application information to obtain the second application (Han: figs. 5B, 7B, 9A-9B, & 11; ¶¶ 09-10, 105-110, 116-121, & 180). It is noted that the metes and bounds of the “a simulation” limitation as currently recited are significantly vague/broad, and cover a wide range of possibilities, including obtaining virtual access to the external application via the first application as taught by Han.].
As to dependent claim 24, Han-Yi further shows:
wherein after displaying the first menu, the method further comprises sending, to the second electronic device, based on the task type, a query request to obtain application information of the second application [e.g. after displaying the first menu, a query request is sent by the first electronic device to the second electronic device based on the task type to obtain application information of the second application (Han: figs. 7B & 11; ¶¶ 10, 116, & 186)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Claims 3, 4, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Chinese Patent Application No. 110471639 and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0147228 ("Yi"). Claims 3, 4, 15 and 16 have been canceled. The limitations of claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 have been incorporated into independent claims 1, 13 and 25, it is respectfully submitted that Yi fails to cure the deficiencies of Han remarked upon above. The teaching of Yi is limited to general window minimization operations on a single device and in conventional multi-window scenarios. Yi fails to teach or suggest minimizing a window of a second electronic device from within a new interface displayed on the first electronic device in the manner now explicitly claimed. The amended claims require displaying, by the first electronic device, a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device, wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device. In contrast, Yi at best shows an icon of a second remote device, not a window of the second electronic device.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Yi is replete with examples of “displaying, by the first electronic device, a second interface comprising a window of the second electronic device, wherein the window comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device.” See, for example, the virtual screen 701 (see Yi: figs. 7-8B, 10A, 11A-12B, &14A-14E; ¶¶ 192-195 & 237) and/or the multiple window frames associated with a multi-window button 7016 (see Yi: figs. 11A-13), either of which comprises a third interface of the second application running on the second electronic device (see Yi: figs. 11A-13; ¶¶ 276 & 284). Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171